Re: [Nettime-bold] SFMOMA and Intel

[guide@life.a-domesticguide.com]

bart says, i'm in tv now, it's my job to be repetitive.
http://over.apiece.net

guide

Nmherman@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/10/2001 6:41:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> curator@conceptualart.org writes:
>
> > That is
> >  the fear that wells up within when we see great big boulders lying in the
> >  middle of our little dirt information super byway like SFMOMA's latest.
>
> I tried to start a discussion of 010101 on Rhizome, David Ross insulted me,
> and when I insulted back I was told to drop it.  By all but the most radical
> of my fringe group.  Museums' hold on art was waning before the internet and
> they're using it now not only to preserve their stature but coerce the mass
> of its potential.  Elitism and trickle-down allocation of value has been the
> American Way for centuries and is in prime form in 2001.
>
> If
> >  art continually chases technology, it will always be in the service of
> >  industry.
>
> I call this the "artistic-technological complex", and have often before, but
> am rarely listened to.  The military was the cognitive rationale for
> industry, hence they joined into a complex.  Art is the new rationale for
> technology.  Growth is fueled by consumerism, i.e. the buying of unneeded and
> wasteful and ineffective products.  Display technologies need content.
> Artists provide the content.  And by artists I mean ESPN, Lou Reed, Ken
> Burns, and Milan Kundera.  The crises of the artistic-technological complex
> are the crises of the very idea of art and artist--the oldest problem in
> human history--not the crises of making cool browsers.
>
> ("I simply must learn Flash 5 or I'll never be able to complete
> >  my piece." says the young computer artist.)  Similarly, if the museum
> chases
> >  technology...what are the artists in the museum chasing.
>
> Success, viewers, a sense of playing a part in something, I suppose.  or
> dates and star treatment, ego gratification, self-discovery, social activism,
> you name it.  Most famous artists think they deserve their fame.  (A lot of
> them change their minds later and burn everything though.)  Artists want to
> be somebody; they want to be artists instead of just to try to be artists;
> they want to be in the world as artists.  I think it's an incestuous, greedy,
> narcissistic view of life but it's very convincing to many.  Some people like
> the stimulation of striving for artistic success.  The artists in 010101 are
> also chasing the carrot and filling an essential role in the corporate future
> art economy.
>
> Didn't Intel
> >  sponsor that processor gobbling monstrosity known as 010101.
>
> Yes; they also are collaborating with IBM on how to make disk drives that
> cannot copy prohibited files.  Imagine you find the cure for NAS, neural
> attenuation syndrome, and try to upload it.  It'd be like throwing a brick at
> a 747.  Lots, and I mean lots, of people would get sickeningly rich off such
> tech so don't be surprised if they pull it off.  People are witless of the
> dangers of computerized society and won't see what hits them until it's too
> late.  (Unless we agitators succeed more.)
>
> In short, we
> >  cannot let those who author closed source applications determine our
> digital
> >  destiny.
> >
> >  That's the issue if you ask us.  Maybe that's why we can't all just get
> >  along.
> >
> >  If we sit back and let them, the macromedias and adobes will have us
> >  believing that they are the source of the creative impulse.
>
> They already have practically proved that they are.  They have almost
> exterminated alternate scenarios, in my opinion, if you look at media culture
> and economy in its entirety:  where it is now, where it's been since Reagan
> or Moses, and where its momentum is pointing.
>
> >
> >  But before this thread fades into oblivion let's be sure to thank geert for
> >  starting the whole discussion.  Otherwise, what impetus would we have to
> >  express ourselves ?  We are very lazy after all.
>
> I think the discussion is just getting concrete and meaningful.  Why kiss it
> goodbye with gestures of collegial good will?  I'm not lazy.  But this post
> won't get past Byfield I bet.
>
> Max Herman
> The Genius 2000 Network
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nettime-bold mailing list
> Nettime-bold@nettime.org
> http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold